Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Monsanto can basically do whatever it wants with no legal ramifications...


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
39 replies to this topic

#31 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 17,373
  • Reputation: 5,419
Moderators

Posted 30 March 2013 - 05:04 PM

Statements like this are really frustrating to me. There are many negative side effects that occur because of the pharmaceutical industry, but to suggest that the entire purpose is to suppress the identification of disease curing agents is laughable and disingenuous. There isn't one big pharmaceutical company, there are hundreds and anyone that found an actual cure to cancer or HIV would automatically become some o the richest people in the world. Also,a lot of diseases have been basically "cured" through vaccines if we can continue to get people to keep using them and not take medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.
There are tens of thousands of scientist and doctors that have dedicated their entire lives to helping others in the pharmaceutical industry and to think they are all in on some grand conspiracy to kill people off is almost offensive. Why are people all over the world dying from cancer still if DCA is so great at curing it? Why is cancer still the number 1 cause of death in Canada? Do you think that all the oncologist out there that meet new patients everyday are not giving them the best treatment out there because of some kickback from the pharmaceutical industry?

Which is more profitable, to give a person a one-time dosage of a curing agent, or to keep them alive for an extended period on a regimen of "treatment" drugs that keep them alive but don't cure their condition? The people making the "treatment" drugs to prolong lives are already among the richest in the world, they don't need to make a cure.

I don't have all the answers about DCA but there is no doubt in my mind that pharmaceutical companies have something to do with the lack of progress in its widespread usage. It's generic, so it would be awfully hard for one company to patent it and make money off of it.

Name me one disease that is among the world's leading killers that has been CURED in the last 20 years. The medical/medical research field is much different now than the one that developed cures and/or vaccines for polio, hepatitis, and the like long ago. People can pretend like these people are still out there trying to develop a cure, but most ARE NOT.

DCA is PROVEN to kill cancer, even the American Cancer Society acknowledged it has shown promise IIRC... Look up the Snopes article on it. But in the same statement regarding its promise, the ACS wanted to "caution" people to not view it as a "magic bullet" aka OPTION.

And all of this isn't derived from some infowars crap, I actually first gained interest in the pharma industrial complex from articles we had to read my first semester in college.

Money makes the world go round, that's the bottom line. I could be wrong, but odds are, I'm closer to the truth than not. All of these things are NOT coincidence.

#32 d-run

d-run

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 04-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,381
  • Reputation: 73
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2013 - 09:23 PM

Which is more profitable, to give a person a one-time dosage of a curing agent, or to keep them alive for an extended period on a regimen of "treatment" drugs that keep them alive but don't cure their condition? The people making the "treatment" drugs to prolong lives are already among the richest in the world, they don't need to make a cure.

I don't have all the answers about DCA but there is no doubt in my mind that pharmaceutical companies have something to do with the lack of progress in its widespread usage. It's generic, so it would be awfully hard for one company to patent it and make money off of it.

Name me one disease that is among the world's leading killers that has been CURED in the last 20 years. The medical/medical research field is much different now than the one that developed cures and/or vaccines for polio, hepatitis, and the like long ago. People can pretend like these people are still out there trying to develop a cure, but most ARE NOT.

DCA is PROVEN to kill cancer, even the American Cancer Society acknowledged it has shown promise IIRC... Look up the Snopes article on it. But in the same statement regarding its promise, the ACS wanted to "caution" people to not view it as a "magic bullet" aka OPTION.

And all of this isn't derived from some infowars crap, I actually first gained interest in the pharma industrial complex from articles we had to read my first semester in college.

Money makes the world go round, that's the bottom line. I could be wrong, but odds are, I'm closer to the truth than not. All of these things are NOT coincidence.


I actually went back and did some research on DCA and it does look to be promising, but please understand a study done on human cells in a petri dish does not constitute a proven cure. I did a pubmed search and actually found a case study (basically a paper written by a doctor about a medically interesting patient/case that there isn't a bunch of info on). The patient had cancer and did a traditional chemo regimen. It got rid of all his cancer, but it came back. The second time around he didn't feel like doing chemo again, so he just told his doctor to fug off and took DCA. After 4 months, the doctor couldn't find the cancer anymore. I find that case way more interesting than the study the snopes article was written about (although it is basically anecdotal evidence).

You are right in the sense that only things that will make the pharmaceutical industry money are funded for trials. However, you are mistaken that you can't make money on generics as many drugs that are generic are re-released under a patented name brand as an ER formulation or in combination with another medication for example. Also, the federal government gives billions of public money for drug studies (as does the canadian gov and many other countries) that isn't tied to profit potential. As far as organizations such as the ACS, there are plenty of organizational practice guidelines that stress using low cost generics as first line treatment (aspirin and warfarin are two off the top of my head.)

The only thing I am trying to get across to you is the statement I bolded isn't true and even by your own logic doesn't make much sense. Sure it is more profitable to make a drug that is used as a life long treatment vs one time cure doses, but this is an open market. If company A,B and C have a corner on the cancer treatment market, and company D thinks that there is a drug that could be used to completely cure cancer, they would find a way to market that drug and deliver it to the masses. It would shift the entire market share to them, make them and their shareholders lots of money and make them an iconic company for all of time.

Sorry for the rant, but I can tell you I know many doctors and scientists personally that would give their own life to find a cure for cancer and to say there aren't people out there doing it is a little insulting

#33 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 17,373
  • Reputation: 5,419
Moderators

Posted 30 March 2013 - 09:51 PM

I actually went back and did some research on DCA and it does look to be promising, but please understand a study done on human cells in a petri dish does not constitute a proven cure. I did a pubmed search and actually found a case study (basically a paper written by a doctor about a medically interesting patient/case that there isn't a bunch of info on). The patient had cancer and did a traditional chemo regimen. It got rid of all his cancer, but it came back. The second time around he didn't feel like doing chemo again, so he just told his doctor to fug off and took DCA. After 4 months, the doctor couldn't find the cancer anymore. I find that case way more interesting than the study the snopes article was written about (although it is basically anecdotal evidence).

You are right in the sense that only things that will make the pharmaceutical industry money are funded for trials. However, you are mistaken that you can't make money on generics as many drugs that are generic are re-released under a patented name brand as an ER formulation or in combination with another medication for example. Also, the federal government gives billions of public money for drug studies (as does the canadian gov and many other countries) that isn't tied to profit potential. As far as organizations such as the ACS, there are plenty of organizational practice guidelines that stress using low cost generics as first line treatment (aspirin and warfarin are two off the top of my head.)

The only thing I am trying to get across to you is the statement I bolded isn't true and even by your own logic doesn't make much sense. Sure it is more profitable to make a drug that is used as a life long treatment vs one time cure doses, but this is an open market. If company A,B and C have a corner on the cancer treatment market, and company D thinks that there is a drug that could be used to completely cure cancer, they would find a way to market that drug and deliver it to the masses. It would shift the entire market share to them, make them and their shareholders lots of money and make them an iconic company for all of time.

Sorry for the rant, but I can tell you I know many doctors and scientists personally that would give their own life to find a cure for cancer and to say there aren't people out there doing it is a little insulting

My fault d-run, when I said, "most" aren't trying to find a cure or don't care, I'm meaning more towards the pharma-funded research. I know there are doctors out there and researchers at different levels who definitely want to find cures, I was just making the point that big companies don't find that to be in their best interest and will do what makes them the most money.

I'm not the most nuanced on the ins-and-outs of all the in-between crap that goes on between funding, developing a drug, and making money off of it. But, as you pointed out in the case study you found, DCA is LEGIT. How legit? Well, who knows, it may be effective in some patients and not in others. But, from the studies I have read, it KILLED human-cancers in lab mice/rats indiscriminately, and had no side effects.

There is no reason that DCA shouldn't be all over the news or that it shouldn't be the most "studied" drug out there in cancer research. Which brings me back to big pharma... The other problem that DCA presents for them is that it was a pre-existing chemical compound from my understanding. It's very easily producible, re-producible, and very cheap at that. So, even if companies decided to develop it as generics, it's dirt cheap. I imagine even if they made profit by selling it in huge numbers, it wouldn't be as much as they are making currently and would make all of their other drugs, the expensive ones, null and void. Additionally, what's stopping non-pharmaceuticals, or start up pharma companies from undercutting them by making it even cheaper? Because again, it can easily be derived and doesn't necessarily need to be made by a pharma company.

And if DCA comes out from some fledgling company first, don't you think generations of people affected by cancer would grow to distrust those old pharma companies and not buy their products?

And what about funding for all those useless studies they may be doing on frying people with new radioactive drugs if DCA works? UH OH, more money lost. Smaller paychecks and a lot of people out of jobs, huge hits on university and local economies, etc.

That's why I don't trust the pharmaceutical companies as is. They can go f*** themselves. Same for monsanto and all those other shady corporations that choose profits over their fellow man's well-being. How often have you heard or seen stories on DCA in the U.S. on mainstream news? I've never seen it aside from the internet. It's like it's to be swept under the rug and to be forgotten.

That's all I'm getting at. I'm not saying doctors and researchers aren't searching for a cure, I'm saying they often are taught so that they aren't searching for the right one, unknowingly.

#34 d-run

d-run

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 04-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,381
  • Reputation: 73
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2013 - 10:13 PM

My fault d-run, when I said, "most" aren't trying to find a cure or don't care, I'm meaning more towards the pharma-funded research. I know there are doctors out there and researchers at different levels who definitely want to find cures, I was just making the point that big companies don't find that to be in their best interest and will do what makes them the most money.

I'm not the most nuanced on the ins-and-outs of all the in-between crap that goes on between funding, developing a drug, and making money off of it. But, as you pointed out in the case study you found, DCA is LEGIT. How legit? Well, who knows, it may be effective in some patients and not in others. But, from the studies I have read, it KILLED human-cancers in lab mice/rats indiscriminately, and had no side effects.

There is no reason that DCA shouldn't be all over the news or that it shouldn't be the most "studied" drug out there in cancer research. Which brings me back to big pharma... The other problem that DCA presents for them is that it was a pre-existing chemical compound from my understanding. It's very easily producible, re-producible, and very cheap at that. So, even if companies decided to develop it as generics, it's dirt cheap. I imagine even if they made profit by selling it in huge numbers, it wouldn't be as much as they are making currently and would make all of their other drugs, the expensive ones, null and void. Additionally, what's stopping non-pharmaceuticals, or start up pharma companies from undercutting them by making it even cheaper? Because again, it can easily be derived and doesn't necessarily need to be made by a pharma company.

And if DCA comes out from some fledgling company first, don't you think generations of people affected by cancer would grow to distrust those old pharma companies and not buy their products?

And what about funding for all those useless studies they may be doing on frying people with new radioactive drugs if DCA works? UH OH, more money lost. Smaller paychecks and a lot of people out of jobs, huge hits on university and local economies, etc.

That's why I don't trust the pharmaceutical companies as is. They can go f*** themselves. Same for monsanto and all those other shady corporations that choose profits over their fellow man's well-being. How often have you heard or seen stories on DCA in the U.S. on mainstream news? I've never seen it aside from the internet. It's like it's to be swept under the rug and to be forgotten.

That's all I'm getting at. I'm not saying doctors and researchers aren't searching for a cure, I'm saying they often are taught so that they aren't searching for the right one, unknowingly.


There seems to be a bunch of new "out of the box" potential treatments or even cures coming out every couple weeks now for a bunch of diseases which is probably one of the reasons the media isn't all over this. It is actually a very exciting time for people in the medical field. If you are more interested in potential cures or studies the "science" subreddit on Reddit is a great place to catch wind of this kind of thing and the comments usually foster a decent discussion on individual trials.

#35 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 17,373
  • Reputation: 5,419
Moderators

Posted 30 March 2013 - 10:16 PM

There seems to be a bunch of new "out of the box" potential treatments or even cures coming out every couple weeks now for a bunch of diseases which is probably one of the reasons the media isn't all over this. It is actually a very exciting time for people in the medical field. If you are more interested in potential cures or studies the "science" subreddit on Reddit is a great place to catch wind of this kind of thing and the comments usually foster a decent discussion on individual trials.

I'll have to check it out man, but I'm actually intimidated by reddit, so I haven't been there much unless someone has posted a link here, lol. It's format just looked funky. I'll check it out though!

#36 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,660
  • Reputation: 1,319
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:48 PM

What part of this is from inforwars lol?


i said "infowars-level"

anything else i need to repeat? how about that link again? http://blog.skeptica...r-deregulation/

#37 P.I.A

P.I.A

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 12-October 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 522
  • Reputation: 285
HUDDLER

Posted 31 March 2013 - 10:31 PM

Kind of just learning about this topic. I personally had no clue! I guess I should stop worrying about junk in cyphrus and look inwards! Keep posting please!

#38 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    Dey Hate Us Because They Aint Us!

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,794
  • Reputation: 2,229
HUDDLER

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:27 PM

i said "infowars-level"

anything else i need to repeat? how about that link again? http://blog.skeptica...r-deregulation/


Ah corrected.. Nevermind! Lol

I saw this in a legit news fashion...or did I? But regardless still an evil monopoly.

#39 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 12,078
  • Reputation: 978
SUPPORTER

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:26 PM

If something has to be tested for years outside to pass regulation, can you tell me why multiple types of GE seeds that were harmful to both the environment and humans passed and made it onto store shelves? I've posted multiple ones that have succeeded at doing it.

I mean obviously years of testing would conclusively show that a product that's contaminated would be bad for people... Am I right about that? So i think it's clear to say that the approval process for GE seeds is fairly damn easy to pass and doesn't take years since there's already been cases that have passed under the old provisions. These new provisions make it easier and if you read the act it clearly says that a judge or court system can't over ride the planting and sell of the seeds no matter if they are harmful or not. Nor can the FDA, USDA or EPA for that matter either. That's also in the act as well.

#40 Hotsauce

Hotsauce

    Future Training Camp MVP

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,814
  • Reputation: 1,385
HUDDLER

Posted 02 April 2013 - 08:57 AM

Posted Image

Posted Image